-
HC - AO justified in exercising his powers u/s 148, as there was no opportunity to verify the transactions claimed to have made in those years. Therefore, it is not a case of change of opinion.
M/s. Alfa Investments Versus The Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13763 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70218&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Unreasonableness would be in not providing an adequate opportunity to the petitioner and he cannot be blamed for the delay caused at the Departmental level. This is a fit case where CIT can exercise his powers under Section 220(2A).
Smt. E. Rukmani, legal heir of late Shri. R. Eswaramurthy Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13760 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70211&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ admitted - In grant of interim relief, allows taxpayer to file return either manually or through appropriate e-filing facility without insisting for the aadhaar number and/or enrollment ID. Two courts have given this type of order (Kerala and Madras HC)
Preeti Mohan
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13756 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - When the power “to do” is certainly to be exercised within the statutory period of limitation, the power to “redo” such exercise does not fall under the purview of limitation once again.
Home Finders Housing Limited Vs. The Income Tax Offcier
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13680 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 153
-
HC - The successor officer is not justified in stating that there is no necessity to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, when his predecessor had thought it fit to do so.
Shri K.M. Vidyasagar Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13652 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70028&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Sec. 11(6) can't be applied retrospectively to AYs prior to AY 2015-16. Depreciation claim of Trust allowed.
DIT. Vs. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13422 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Since non-compete arrangement was only a smoke screen, payment to be treated as revenue receipt.
CIT. Vs. R. Radikaa and Radaan Media Works India Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13398 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - AO not empowered to make disallowance in final order when such disallowance had not emanated from the draft assessment order or from the directions of DRP.
Sanmina SCI India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13388 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Waiver of interest u/s 220(2) - The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide.
Alagesan Proprietor: Manigandan Rice Mill Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -3, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, The Tax Recovery Officer -8, The Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13381 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69709&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Wealth-tax to be levied on assets held by assessee despite assessee co. amalgamated with another co..
Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13355 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Since assessee made substantial investment of capital and loan and the new unit has separate premises, separate labour force, separate license and electricity substantial expansion of existing business qualifies for Sec. 80IB benefit.
ACIT. vs. Leo Fasteners
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13207 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80-IB
-
HC - Sec.80HHD deduction should be granted qua eligible unit/units only. Revenue cannot draw support from Sec. 80HHC provisions and the two provisions (i.e Sections 80HHC and 80HHD) are not analogous.
CIT. vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12858 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 80HHD, 80HHC
-
HC - Compensation given to employees of sick Govt company under special package is exempt u/s 10(10B) and payment is not subject to TDS.
Hindustan Photo Film Workers' Welfare Centre vs. UOI and others
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12492 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 10(10B)
-
HC - Assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit u/s 54-F only on the ground that all the 15 flats are not in the same Block, particularly when all the 15 flats are located at the same address.
Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Gumanmal jain
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12320 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68625&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Capital gains even though forming part of net profit in the P&L account, should be excluded while computing book profits for the purposes of MAT u/s. 115JB. Further, assessee will be entitled to relief u/s 54EC on said capital gains.
Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12273 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 115JB, 54EC
-
S. 9(1)(vi) 'Royalty' on transfer of software rights: There is a difference between sale of a 'copyrighted article' and the 'copyright' itself. S. 9(1)(vi) applies only to the latter and not the former. Explanation 4 inserted by FA 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 has to be read and understood only in that context and cannot be expanded to bring within its fold transactions beyond the realm of the provision
CIT vs. Vinzas Solutions India Private Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12006 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
HC - Co-operative credit society providing credit facilities to its members alone, and not to general public at large would not be covered by description of term 'co-operative bank' and, would be entitled to seek deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).
Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11822 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66869&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Since entire sum related to transfer of business rights was not covered by exclusionary proviso to Sec 28(va), Rs. 1 cr toward non-compete covenant, taxable u/s 28(va), out of total consideration of Rs. 6 cr. received a pharma co. upon entering into Brand Acquisition, Consultancy and Non-compete agreements.
CIT. Vs. Chemech Laboratories Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11793 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Interest income from loan granted to members for agricultural produce is eligible for Sec. 80P relief.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11709 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66702&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Dismissed - Reassessment initiated u/s 147/148 for making addition u/s 68 of excess share premium on issuance of compulsory convertible cumulative preference shares.
Trans Corporate Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11701 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.